Liz Jones is the well known columnist whom I referenced in the opening segment of my last post. I thought I’d follow up with some links.

Captain Capitalism wrote a post not too far back naming Liz as one of what he calls The Dowd Crowd where he advises young women of the dangers of following the advice of women like her.

I stumbled on an article yesterday written by her ex husband titled How feminism destroyed real men. This is the man she complained about sitting in the warm car while she filled it up in cold weather. It was written during the brief time they were married, and what struck me was that when he isn’t praising her strong independentness he sounds remarkably like Roissy. He also points out that feminist women like Liz need over the top alphas like him:

I’m always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.

While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it’s a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.

…

I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.

…

She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.

He also explains how he used his mastery of her in the bedroom to smooth things over after his last affair.

Arguing with a woman is like packing your swim trunks and heading off to the ice-rink for a few laps. It’s a terrible idea and no amount of skill, information, or argumentation will convince her in the heat of an argument that you’re right. That hamster’s on a roll and he’s not stopping until he’s tuckered out.

At the first sign of a 5-alarm argument, wordlessly grab the fishing rod, or the gun (careful not to point it at her, no matter how tempting), grin and tip your hat as you head out into the wilderness with a six pack (or a 12-pack if you’re me) for a refreshing day of adventurous nag-free bliss. When you come home she’s liable to have dinner fixed for you and never bring up the issue again.

If you do this often enough and boldly display your complete ambivalence to her tantrums, she’ll stop throwing them. Just one of the ways a hypergamized woman is similar to a child.

I don’t think you should ever expect to “win” an argument with your wife, but I don’t necessarily think that means you should avoid them. Sometimes your wife is going through some real things and need the stress relief (death in the family, being fired, other major mistakes, etc.)..

The key from the male side is to not take anything she says personally, and then to cut her off or leave before she completely loses it. I will sit down and pick up a book or at my computer and then just raise my finger to indicate she needs to be quiet and after a minute or two she gets the hint and walks away. A few hours later she is acting like nothing ever happened.

I will disagree with Liz Jones’ husband though. She is not incredibly strong. She is in fact very fragile because any little thing will send her on an emotional roller coaster and she needs a firm man to keep her in check.

They say that pride comes before a fall, and although Mr Jones does indeed sound very Heartiste, look what happened! He certainly rates his wife’s abilities far higher than would seem warranted, but husbands often do – Look at John Stuart Mill! Either he ditched her or she ditched him. Do we, indeed, can we, really know which? Eysenck, in the book I read years ago entitled ‘How to have a Happy Marriage’ drew the conclusion from his researches that a marriage is most likely to succeed if both parties are tolerant and not fiery. Seemingly the Jones’s were the very opposite. It also seems that despite his Alpha-attitude he has too much respect for one very overpaid (like all Mail Journos – I have some info on that) over-the-hill, self-opinionated, post-marital spinsters.

Do women, however, as they read the Mail on the 10.23 into London – a newspaper which more than any other Daily, deliberately targets middle-aged, middle-class, women; ‘the Wives of the Men who run the Country’ really buy into the rubbish that is written there, or is it of no more moment than leafing through a copy of Playboy might be, for a man. I knew one woman who told me that she at first read Cosmo religiously, and then switched to Marie-Claire, even as she acquired more dresses than than Imelda Marcos shoes, but then grew out of the titillation and the dress-buying habit and instead had a family. Mrs Jones is childless I believe, and has left it too late – so much for being brilliant.

“It was written during the brief time they were married, and what struck me was that when he isn’t praising her strong independentness he sounds remarkably like Roissy.”

liz jones’ success is a function of matriarchy, not merit

this guy remided me of roosh, not rossy, b/c he’s a “travel writer” too — he’s never actually done ONE masculine thing in his life, but imagines himself an Alpha (whatever that is) bc his feminist wife made sufficient money crushing masculinity, fatherhood, and little boys underfoot that he can travel around the world and pretend he’s a writer

“He also points out that feminist women like Liz need over the top alphas like him”

the lad imagines telling his Uberskank to shut-up, and pretending he’s a Big Boinker in the bedroom, constitutes an accomplishment, and indicates dominance over the very wife who ruled him

indeed he does sound like rossy, roosh, and all western men!

problem is, Liz and the Lizards rule ACTUAL men, unlike Ms. Jones’ spousette — while this chump is pretending to manhood, much less alphaness, Team Lizard used their governments, courts, schools, media, cops, and churches to construct their gynocracy

but but hey! no prob cause Ms. Jones’ hubbie reports that he’s good in bed, and claims to tell her shut-up

LOL

try telling a woman in the US to shut-up, there, AlphaMan, and see how fast her Instruments swing into action, and the cage door slams shut

every time Mr Alpha told wifey to shut up, it translated to more “articles” and laws and rules and empowerments from Liz and the Lizards

doubtless our Hero is following roosh thru the balkans right now, both of them sporting their “Alpha Attack!” and “I’m Out for Trout!” baseball caps, scrounging for old hags with money who “made it” in their sad, evil matriarchies

they deserve each other, shame they separated, mebbe God will bring them back together, hope springs eternal

Interesting post by the Captain. In the coming weeks look for a storm of op-eds about Sheryl Sandberg and her new book, which dispenses advice for young women and the men who should support them equally in their careers. You would think she would wait until going through a divorce or at least until her kids were into adulthood before telling everyone else how to do it.

Liz’s husband at the time identified himself as a feminist, “I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.”

Jessica Valenti recently identified her fiance as a “feminist”. Not an “Equalist”, but a feminist!

Of course I agree that the man is not a strict roissyite, as I don’t see any of those types of playas getting married to *anyone* (at least, not until there’s a societal reset of catastrophic proportions). This does not mean he’s some sort of lesser beta schlub. If the photo is an accurate likeness, he clearly takes decent care of himself and looks nice. His ex, at the time of the shot, is gazing up in adoration.

He made an extremely poor decision in getting married to this skanky shrew, and it’s fair to say that he made a poor decision to cheat on her (really, if you’re going to get married, I think you should live up to the contract); but then many on this board and those like it have made similar decisions in the past. Sometimes, marrying a nag or a skank is the catalyst toward self-improvement and reaching alpha male status, and I suspect that may be the case here, as it is among many participants and bloggers in the androsphere.

If making a poor decision means one can never be an alpha, then I’m not one, and I would have a hard time pointing to anyone who is. We all make mistakes. As men, the best that we can do is to acknowledge and learn from them, and attempt to grow as men. Most of us will never be billionaires who look like Brad Pitt, and who can fly a helicopter through the caldera of a volcano right after winning the heavyweight championship. There will always be another man who can beat you, and we will all lose from time to time. By the same token, we can all be better, faster, stronger, smarter tomorrow than we were yesterday, if we work toward excellence. I hope that Dhaliwal has washed his hands of his naggy shrew ex-wife and is continuing to enjoy the quest for excellence, and that he is indulging in the good rewards that come from self-mastery.

Liz Jones’s then-husband’s column theorizes that women choose to marry supplicant men (betas?), only to find themselves bored at the lack of a challenge and wishing for an alpha. The theory on this site is that women date and sleep with alphas but generally end up marrying betas (in part because alphas are fewer in number). Neither of these theories directly explains my situation, so I seek an explanation.

I’m a mix of alpha and beta, but whatever I am my ex-wife’s complaints about me were essentially that I was too alpha. After 29 years and 4 kids, she frivorced me. Immediately after the divorce was final, at age 52, she began dating online. 13 months later, she re-married. By the former Mr. Jones’s theory and by the theory on this site, she should have re-married someone more alpha — or at least more sexually attractive — than me. Instead, my replacement is less attractive and more beta — shorter, older, less educated, lower income, twice divorced already, generally mousy in his dealings with me and others, etc. (At the same time — though my ex doesn’t believe it — he has a history of angrily abusing his children, step-children, and at least his second wife, mostly verbally but also physically.)

This seems to me to be the opposite of the sequence of events that either of the above theories would predict, at least on the surface. Is my ex-wife an aberration? Two different counselors diagnosed her as “asexual” and “blocked” sexually. Does that short-circuit in her wiring take her outside the normal theories?

Well, some of what he said was quite bad ass, but his desire for “strong independant women” is a bit confusing. Although, his particular choice of a “strong independant women” was reduced to tears by a minor car problem, so maybe he means something different by that than what I thought.

Largely, I guess Im surprised that a guy as string willed as he portrays himself to be could put up with a self important bitchy shrew like Liz Jones for long enough to marry her. I mean, its not as if shes even hot enough to make up for that deplorable personality in any way…

There’s much harshness directed at Nirpal “the ex-Mr. Liz Jones” Dhaliwal that I don’t really understand.
……….
Of course I agree that the man is not a strict roissyite,….He made an extremely poor decision in getting married to this skanky shrew……If making a poor decision means one can never be an alpha.

It not the fact that he got married or married a shrew, but rather he married a feminist shew who is 16 years older than he is and then goes on to tell us hes an “over-the-top alpha.”

Talk about braggadocio

In committing such an error the only way one can remain alpha is if he got rich out of the arrangement.

This I highly doubt since although popular online among her audience (online fame is the lowest form of fame and many who posses it aren’t rich), Liz Jones is to my knowledge not rich.

Well, some of what he said was quite bad ass, but his desire for “strong independant women” is a bit confusing

I see it as the male version of the hamster. At some point, it slowly dawned on him that he made a colossal error. Such nonsense is, I suspect, his best attempt to convince himself that he didn’t actually put his balls in this nasty harridan’s purse. Writing the article that he did, it was absolutely imperative that he explain his own foolishness, and his best attempt was to merely repeat the nonsense he had been playing on infinite loop in his head.

In committing such an error the only way one can remain alpha is if he got rich out of the arrangement.

I don’t think that marriage is a great deal even if one gains a zillion dollars in the process, but yeah. Anyway, you seem to have a rather concretized idea of what “alpha” is and isn’t, with hard rules and such. That’s not the way I see it. It is more of an ideal and a state of mind to me, so with the knowledge that we are arguing from two different definitions, we’ll have to agree to disagree, unless of course you’d like to publish your rulebook online (so far I’ve got “an alpha may not marry a woman 16 years older than he, unless he gets rich in the process”, and that’s not really enough for me to compare or contrast).

It not the fact that he got married or married a shrew, but rather he married a feminist shew who is 16 years older than he is and then goes on to tell us hes an “over-the-top alpha.”

He doesn’t refer to himself as an over the top alpha; those are my words. But he does say women like Liz need men like him, and I think he is right. The question is do men like him really need women like Liz? I don’t know the details of their marriage/divorce, but my guess is he profited career wise from the arrangement.

It sounds like your ex married a neutered male cat. She probably isn’t having sex with him, and he has no way of leveraging sex from her. Meanwhile, his lower apparent SMV and status puts him in a lifetime orbit (otherwise known as “hell-on-Earth” around her.

I think men like him need women like her. It’s a form of preening his plumage. In my opinion he’s orbiting her status, which I think we would agree is about the most beta move of all. Meanwhile, he gets to pretend that “dominating” a woman of her status makes him something like a man.

Imagine if we could land a date with the woman screaming “I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle!”. Talk about preselection. We would really be proving something to the world then, wouldn’t we?

I had failed to look at the link, and so was not aware that Ms Jones was married to a man called Nirpal Djaliwal who is I now learn sixteen years younger than she (a sort of homegrown EatPrayLove). I have now done so and looked at the (flattering to Miss Jones) photo of herself and her husband. I do not have the benefit of the First (or is it second) Amendment and thus do not feel free to say what I am thinking: It would in any event be largely off-topic for this blog. Clearly however Miss Jones is even more desparate than I had imagined. As for Mr Jones, I shake my head. Alpha is not how I would describe self-professed behaviour and his adultery was surely entirely predictable even to the dim-witted Ms Jones.

Djaliwal’s self-assessment as alpha is based entirely on the relative SMV in the relationship, which is not saying much given that Liz Jones was 16-17 years older (“Look out, wall! Here I co-” *splat) and an ugly feminist to boot.

He was young and not bad looking, I guess, but It’s like a male 5 getting with a female 2-3 and crowing that he “owns” the relationship.

I see it as the male version of the hamster. At some point, it slowly dawned on him that he made a colossal error. Such nonsense is, I suspect, his best attempt to convince himself that he didn’t actually put his balls in this nasty harridan’s purse. Writing the article that he did, it was absolutely imperative that he explain his own foolishness, and his best attempt was to merely repeat the nonsense he had been playing on infinite loop in his head.

I suppose thats possible. He does sound very much like a strident Feminist claiming that he had to be a real man to handle a woman like that. Maybe trying to disguise the fact that by any other measure, having a wife like that does not actually reflect well on the masculinity of the guy who married her.

He still went back to her after cheating however, and didnt grovel about it, which seems incongruent with a guy whose balls are in her purse. What whipped guy cheats and is unapologetic about it, and what guy who believes he has made a collosal mistake comes back after cheating if he doesnt care about his wife any more.

Maybe there was some financial/career related reason for the marriage, as others have suggested, although its not immediately apparent to me what doors Mrs Jones could have opened that could justify the price of having to marry her.

I’m a mix of alpha and beta, but whatever I am my ex-wife’s complaints about me were essentially that I was too alpha. After 29 years and 4 kids, she frivorced me. Immediately after the divorce was final, at age 52, she began dating online. 13 months later, she re-married. By the former Mr. Jones’s theory and by the theory on this site, she should have re-married someone more alpha — or at least more sexually attractive — than me. Instead, my replacement is less attractive and more beta — shorter, older, less educated, lower income, twice divorced already, generally mousy in his dealings with me and others, etc. (At the same time — though my ex doesn’t believe it — he has a history of angrily abusing his children, step-children, and at least his second wife, mostly verbally but also physically.)

This seems to me to be the opposite of the sequence of events that either of the above theories would predict, at least on the surface. Is my ex-wife an aberration? Two different counselors diagnosed her as “asexual” and “blocked” sexually. Does that short-circuit in her wiring take her outside the normal theories?

Sounds like a screwed up woman, to me.

There are, of course, some women who want to dominate a man — they are relatively scarce in number (I would guess something like 2-3% of all women, if that much). I don’t mean sexually dominate (there’s almost no women who want that other than as perhaps an occasional “spice” — the “natural dominatrix” type, sexually, is smaller than 1% of women), but dominate in the relationship as a whole. This kind of woman does not like being with an alpha male — at least eventually, although 29 years of marriage is an awfully long time to figure that out to be honest. If this is who she is, then her choice of second mate could make some sense, if she is capable of dominating him, relationally — the asexual, or sexual blocking, would play in tune with this because, again, most women are not attracted to men they can dominate relationally, and certainly not sexually, so picking that kind of man as a mate is avoiding sexuality as well, in some ways. Sounds like your ex-wife has quite a few issues. Aberration may be a strong word, but atypical probably fits.

I’m a mix of alpha and beta, but whatever I am my ex-wife’s complaints about me were essentially that I was too alpha.

If a woman is rebellious she won’t respond correctly to alpha or marriage game.

I have read comments in the manosphere from other men who got frivorced when they started to up their apha and try to assert more leadership in their marriage. Some women don’t respond correctly. Our current culture encourages them to be rebellious.

Although your ex was not able to trade up in alpha or SMV, that does not mean she did not have the desire to do so. At age 52 it would be very, very difficult for a female to actually trade up. Here are two examples:

Given that Ms Jones is a well-paid Mail Journalist would I be mistaken in supposing that she is paying him maintenance and that he has gained a large percentage of her property on Divorce? Always marry an older and wealthier woman is surely good advice for any man considering embarking on Matrimony!

Then wouldn’t the actual proof of his “real” alpha badass-ness be the remains his dead-by-spousecide-or-suicide body?

Hmmmmm?

(I didn’t even have to take my hamster out of first gear or push the revs past ~2500 RPM’s to come up with that.)

He’s not the first nitwit to try and equate “real men” with “male feminist”, though usually only women are dumb enough to try it. Which tells you about all you need to know.

Anyway, as originally pointed out (by Happy_Bullet) this does get at the classic modern female dilemma:
* She wants a real man around.
* She wants him to do what she wants.
If a guy just does everything a woman wants, he is not a real man.
Dilemma!

Nirpal says: I was 26 when we met. I was young and poor; Liz was quite a bit older and well established in her career, earning good money. I married her in part for financial security. I was attracted to her but she was quite above me in status. I couldn’t believe she was interested in me. We got married and it was fun for a while. Anyway, I became a fat slob; she harangued me about it. She was a neat freak and a high maintenance neurotic bitch at times; I hated that about her. I lost sexual attraction for her; I withheld sex as revenge for her neat freak nature.

I hated her writing about our marriage and about me. That was really what ended it for me.

I went to India, met a few women, cheated. I came back home, met another woman, cheated again. Stayed in this 4 year marriage about 2 years too long.

deti comments: This is quite the different man who wrote the Roissyesque article. This sounds like a nebbish little man who got himself a sugar mommy and then decided he didn’t like having to be responsible to and for an older chick who was shit testing him within an inch of his life. So I doubt the whole “Who’s the boss” ass-slapping sex session he describes in the 2006 article even happened. Sounds like a whiny little bitch boy to me.

Liz says: I finally kicked my husband out after he revealed he cheated on me again. HE DONE ME WRONG! IT’S ALL ABOUT ME!! In retrospect it was never going to work. I’m 14 years older than he is; he never had any money; I worked my ass off to support us; he was a little Peter Pan man-boy who still hasn’t grown up. I resented him and pushed him away sexually because I was doing all the work. I also felt bad about the fact that I am older and couldn’t give him kids. I pushed him away because of that too.

He apparently expected me to just sit back, be helpless and adoring but for my generation of women, that’s too much to ask and we’re not going to do that. Women’s accomplishments have turned men into little boys who can’t do anything for themselves.

Shit, I had no problem with him going to India. I just didn’t know he was going to fornicate his way through the conference he was going to. It was really pretty easy to discover his cheating. What a dumb ass he was.

Oh well. I got my horse and my five cats. I’ll just have to be happy with them.

deti comments: Seriously. Five cats. Could Roissy be any more vindicated?

Anecodotal of course, but most of the people I have observed writing publicly about their marriage problems and taking part in Reality TV programs end up getting divorced. There is something to be said for privacy and discretion.

I posted this comment at the end of the last post and I’m it went unseen.

Liz Jones is rather famous for writing an article where she attempted take the used condoms of her boyfriend out of the trash in an attempt to impregnate herself. Despite the words in the link title, he was not her husband and had, in no uncertain terms, expressed intention not to have a baby, actually declared and made it clear to her that any sex with him was on condition of her implicit agreement that the sex was on these terms. And she details that his desires were of no concern to her and if she got pregnant, by any means necessary, that that was too bad for him. Her imperative trumps his wishes. And she further details how when she would ask other women that had gotten pregnant if they stole the sperm and most just brushed it off with something like “No, I didn’t have to”. And to her benefit she warned men of guarding against women in the later stages of their fertility taking measures into their own hands.

But also, quite honestly, what Liz Jones is about, is the British version of outrage journalism that struggling former media entities employ to enhance profitability. And we all fell right in to the game. She writes something like this piece on Chivalry and Dalrock posts it and then all the mad, angry men of the world go piling into the original site and voila, page views.

Right now, today on the Atlantic, there is a piece called “Why men need to see women as people” and it details a case of violence in South Africa, then pulls in the India gang rape case, and then says “And sadly, even in this country too” and details some case in Ohio involving “football players and a drunk girl”.

So then the rather surprising thing is that almost all of the comments, I would 4 to 1 were male commenters calling out the story, or making MRA claims of violence by women against men, or accusing the story of using remote cases, in remote parts of the world, to bludgeon men with the same old claims over and over.

If you don’t think that the mastheads of these magazines know exactly what they are doing then you should probably think again. Mark Anderssun, the developer of Netscape, and internet VC investor, literally told the New York Times to discontinue the print version of the paper and concentrate on the online version while he was standing steps away from the actual printing press while being interviewed about “the future” by a New York Times writer. All of these older literary and press outlets are under attack from what is called a “spatial fix”, a creation of new “space”, by blogs and other media like this one, Dalrock.

Fox News has shown, as has Dalrock, that outrage works. Continue to feed the outrage of your market audience and keep them coming back. The ratings of Fox News have gone through the roof by feeding the outrage of both conservatives and then liberals as a reaction to claims made, and have killed CNN as the old style non-biased reporting model that they inherited from the networks and expanded to great success throughout the 80s and at 90s has lost ground to outrage based journalism.

The Atlantic, the New Yorker, and even the New York Times understands how to employ outrage yet maintain a safe and credible distance from claims that they employ this tactic. The secret is woman’s topics and the expansion of what could be considered “women’s topics” like childcare and parenting. One End of Men article, one Why Men Suck article, one Why Women are Victims, one Why Women are Smarter, better, more spiritual, more organized, stronger, more anything, gets more page views than any article on Obama and the Minimum wage or Why is the world is or isn’t flat, in or not in recession, recovering or not recovering.

Because in my opinion, Blue vs Red is dead, and the new war is Him vs Her.

Liz Jones and the British are far more sophisticated, far more predictably British in the use of understatement and are not so blunt as their American counterparts. They employ topics that are not bluntly feminist, like this topic, Chivalry, yet the results are the same, and quite successful in the fact that a rather global audience will pile onto this topic, where a feminist topic or interpretation might only affect a European or American audience depending on the framing.

They know exactly what they are doing, as does The Atlantic, as does Jezebel, as does the Huff Post, Slate, and others. What they are doing is damaging “love” and relationships at the gain of profitability and viewership (I had previous used Readership, but that is an outmoded term. Even enter the page and counters increment and page gets paid.

For me it works, because I make no bones about being anti-marriage in this era, under this regime of laws, and so I have no problem in piling on and throwing haymakers. And I confess a certain glee in the mischief, like dancing on the couch when the parents aren’t home, of using vile and non-PC language, and often, rather irresponsibly.

But at some point, the realization that the outcome is quite dramatic and a general public awareness of the outcome of this tactic should ensue.

The birth rate is 1.1 per 1000. The death rate is 7.4 per 1000. Children and having children is very complicated subject where economics and life goals come into play. But the gender war, and I use that term accurately of the battle that has emerged in the past 5 years, is having a toll. After two years of study on marriage and birth rate, I still am unsure as to which gender is more impacting on these statistics. I still am unsure as to whether it is the women who are not marrying, not having children or whether it is the men. Or whether the men the women want to marry are not marrying so then women will not accept the ones that wish to marry. Or whether the young men don’t want to marry and are not preparing to marry and the women do not like the men that do prepare to marry.

Get the point?

Look ahead 10 years. The birth rate in 2007 was 4.37 and the current 1.1 is 25% of that number and a lot of that 4.37 was birth of children to immigrant women and not American citizens. So I would ask where will the public school system be in 10 years with only 25% of of the attendance they have right now. Where will the day care industry be after 10 years of reduced birthrate? Can companies, pre-schools, church schools survive with only 25% of what they currently have with infrastructure that is based on a billing structure that was incurred under much larger numbers of “clients, customers, attendees, etc.”? What options will families have? And especially what options will single mothers have?

And what I can see is that this Gender War is just starting, that the “great unwashed” body of men is still not yet a part of it, yet I get more and clues that it is spreading. Jezebel bashed a University of Nebraska editorial from a college boy in the Midwest, a Cornhusker, that claimed women have reached equality and in fact superiority, and it is time to back off. He quoted a lot of End of Men statistics. And the Feminist shitstorm was hurled at him. And the men got in on it. So it will spread.

So I would ask the men of this august forum, Dalrock, the only major blog that avoided the Hate Site List, what are we going to do? Do we use this outrage journalism to our advantage or do we begin to call it out for what it is and point out the damage that is being done?

Both Liz Jones and her sex share trainwreck personal lives, inside and outside of their short marriage. I would not take anything they have to say on male/female relations seriously.
There is, however, certain amusement in hearing Liz Jones ex throw out such personal details of their relationship. Now if only Sandra Loh Tsing’s ex would put pen to paper.

Ah. Liz Jones. A bit of a lej [Eng., chiefly That London =legend, pron. “ledge”] round these parts due her apparently oblivious and autistic talent for disgorging the most gruesome and hoot-worthy details of her trainwreck of a life, possibly outranking even Anthea Turner as The Stupidest Woman In Europe (a hotly contested title).
Her pieces are singlehandedly responsible for more red-faced, tearful, thigh-slapping and unseemly public mirth among the Queen’s lieges than almost any other event (short of a public hanging, but they banned them, along with smoking and guns).Enjoy.

“But also, quite honestly, what Liz Jones is about, is the British version of outrage journalism that struggling former media entities employ to enhance profitability. “ Twelve-yard screamer from Minter and it’s .. back o’ th’net! Get in!

As far as the Indian boy is concerned, it’s probably germane to the discussion to note that under Blighty’s arcane, adamantine and imperceptibly graduated caste system, “poor Desi male” is the approximate equivalent of “unemployed male Latino migra (with scabies)” round your way.
Silly sod obviously thought he could get a leg-up the hierarchy, without being born into it, I’ll warrant. Doesn’t work like that. “They” will never ever ignore one’s colour and general foreignness, no matter if you or your grandparents were born here, or how much bunce you can wave under their aquiline noses. Makes Japan, say, seem like Mos Eisley.

@ Mark Minter: brilliant post. Insightful. But even though it appears on face value that MRAs are being played, there is a benefit to those men who have been through the feminist wringer and that is comraderie; a sense that we are not alone. This may serve no obvious purpose, but for those men who have been disenfranchised for so long, reading about fellow activists reduces some of the alienation.

But also, quite honestly, what Liz Jones is about, is the British version of outrage journalism that struggling former media entities employ to enhance profitability. And we all fell right in to the game. She writes something like this piece on Chivalry and Dalrock posts it and then all the mad, angry men of the world go piling into the original site and voila, page views.

I’m roughly familiar with the nature of Ms. Jones and have been for several years. The post in question wasn’t a piece fisking Ms. Jones per se, it was a satirical fisking of a mindset (actually two, that of entitled women and the supplicating white knights who grovel to them). In fact, it is aimed more at the supplicating white knight attitude than the other, but you can’t get at one without examples of the other to respond to. Yes Ms. Jones has a strong tendency (at times at least deliberate) to be over the top. But note that her over the top tabloid newspaper column is no more over the top than the ostensibly traditional Christian woman’s (Sheila Gregoire) syndicated column and her commenters.

In fact, the women commenting on Sheila’s blog are far more over the top than Ms. Jones. In addition to the commenters I referenced in the OP, see this woman who explains that the men on Titanic who gave their lives weren’t really that noble after all. The mindset is real, and so prevalent that unless it is presented by someone like Liz who is known for being over the top strongly tends to go unnoticed. Note Sheila’s outraged defense of Rachel when a commenter calls Rachel out on her casual explanation that women’s lives are worth more than men’s lives. Sheila lets it be known that Rachel is a good traditional Christian woman.

@ Dalrock
You mentioned recently that understanding women more (red pill) made you more sympathetic to them. I, and probably many men, are quite a bit less sympathetic toward women post red pill. It might be a good idea for you to detail your sympathies, perhaps a post. Helping other men find some truthful sympathy might give some guys a way to deal with their root of bitterness (Hebrews 12:15).

“You [Dalrock] mentioned recently that understanding women more (red pill) made you more sympathetic to them. I, and probably many men, are quite a bit less sympathetic toward women post red pill. ”

I’d like to see Dalrock expound on this too.

The only thing that brings me sympathy and endearment for women after taking the red pill and putting on the Glasses was knowing that this is the way they are — hypergamy, shit testing, emotional, thinking with emotions, tendency toward drama — and there’s not much they can do about it other than simply be aware of it and moderate their responses to it. She truly cannot help her hardwiring. She’s hardwired to secure the best man available to her. She’s hardwired to shit test her man to make sure he is strong enough to withstand challenges to his authority. She can’t help it (mostly).

Obviously, the man has no say in how it all goes down if/when the woman unilaterally decides “in the best interests of the child” to switch from having recreational/pleasure sex to having procreational sex. She has no obligation to inform him (even if married), and his consent is implicit. This is of course morally wrong, but that’s the legal regime here in Femtopia.

Also, I just left a comment at the Capt Cappie post linked to at the top of the OP here which has a slightly different tack to it than the one you’re on. Not that I think you’re at all wrong with what you say about “outrage journalism” – I just have a different emphasis.

I’m also not sure about your analysis based on birthrates – my understanding was the total lifetime fertility rates (average number of children born per woman up to menopause) had been basically constant over the last few decades, but I’m not up on the latest data like you are. Your dataset will reflect changes quicker, because the TLFR numbers can only be determined after a woman is done having kids around age 50, even if she has her last one at 27.

Wow, that Liz Jones is a real piece of work! In the 2006 article her then-husband mentions that he cheated on her and then patched things up by giving her good sex. I bet she nagged and bitched at him 24×7 since they got married and overlooked more suitable men to be with someone who cheated on her. I also have no doubt that she mistreated the decent, more suitable men, she dated earlier in her life. She is reaping what she sowed.

Wow, that sea hag is now 55 and her ex-husband is only 38. Her ex- was obviously not the alpha that his 2006 article made him out to be. If he had been an alpha, he wouldn’t have married a used-up sea hag! I bet that the women with whom he had affairs were also old hags.

It is one thing to post an article with not only underlying data or emperical observation, and even to take an honest attempt to provide analysis, even if the analysis is filtered through a particular mindset, and even knowing, or even hoping to have the reaction to that article be outrage and anger. The classic example of this is c*ck caruousel meme backed by stats of “never marrieds” or divorce statistics by age.

It is another to deliberately post an article knowing that the interpretation will me met with outrage by parties, that the claims are dubious, the statistics are used in a way that is meant to bludgeon and not to inform or prove or justify, but the goal is page views. The editorial group wrings its hands and says “Boy, this will piss them all off.”

Inevitably, the manosphere engages in shock journalism, and outrage is the coin of this realm (to steal from Rollo). But for most of the writers, the common element is a lack of monetization attempts and strong desire to educate and promote awareness, and to promote, for whatever it is worth, social change and masculine consciousness among the men. For most it is not outrage for profit motives. Is the motive superior? I can’t say, but I can say it is not for profit.

Also, about the analogy of birth rate.

The 1.1 birth rate number is the published government birthrate, as the 7.4 is the published death rate. I gained both numbers from the Bureau of Census web pages. It is not, in any means, an attempt to do a final analysis other than a relative comparison of one number versus the other and a comparison of said birth rate from 2007 from the same source. So it would seem to me if one value from a later year is significantly less than the same value from a previous year, then something is amiss. And while this site and many of the participants in this site might embrace using data in a manner to explain what is going on, quite often these numbers are just considered as numbers for the sake of numbers and are compared against other numbers and the numbers from the prior periods. But reality is that there is real life impact to some of these numbers and this birth rate number is a call to alarm to say “Well what if….”

The big question for me about women is do they or do they not want to have children and family. At least the majority of them, what do they want, (Not that freud question, this is simple yes or no question)? I think they do. I cannot help but see magazines at supermarket checkouts, that to me, are there because those are topics that interest the great majority of women. And there was a cover I just saw that had 3 Celeb women with the bold heading “They’re having babies!!!”

And if that is the case, then it might appear that a small percentage of women is hijacking the narrative at great cost to the larger body of women, yet the framing of the narrative is masking the long term damage to women. And I believe that there are those on commercial mastheads that are either part of this minority or don’t care because their livelihood is dependent on not caring.

This the tact I have started taking is Jezebel trolls, a straight broadside addressed to the author that says, “Ok girlfriend, this is what is happening. You and me are killing love. And frankly, I win if you do. For every woman you convince away from marriage, men and love, one of my men is now free from what I believe to be a stupid and mindless slavery. So what do you want to do? Who really is losing here? I think women will over the long run.”

“IF WOMEN WERE HARD-WIRED FOR HYPERGAMY, THEY WOULDNT SETTLE FOR BETA’S”
Uh, not necessarily exclusive. They are reflexively hypergamous without exception.
They are also instinctively compelled to latch onto resources like an AIM-9 Sidewinder, and to hell with the consequences.
The hypergamous optimising of mate choice is a preferential state. It can be overridden by the base drive. The desperate, amoral scrambling to get their hands on any accumulation of goodies for as little actual work as possible is utterly paramount.
The first is a least-effort, no-brainer (ok, hind-brainer, I’ll give you that) strategy to implement the second.

Even a cat can swim, if it’s terrified enough. And they’ll hang like a limpet around anyone who feeds them regularly. All women are no different in their motivations. They even make the same noises, and are just as indolent.

“You should have died in Iraq like you were supposed to”. Typical American child support whore, and the reason I am thankful not to be married.

This is also a good illustration of what happens when you go off to war for the vultures who currently write national policy in USA. I mean both liberals and conservatives. They use you up and spit you out, and don’t care about you at all. Men are disposable, so do the smart thing instead of the right thing, and say f*** it. Let the millionaires fight their own wars and marry a bar slut when they come back.

I’m the woman who writes the blog you posted to, and while I have moments of deep hurt involving things that have happened, I am in fact not bitter. I’m sorry that you find heartache laughable. At least I have a heart, and am able to empathize with others who experience struggles because I have had struggles of my own. I truly feel sorry for you.

Jenny, I just read your blog post and I have come to the conclusion that you definitely are bitter! Your blog post seems to imply that sex was the only reason you married or stayed with your husband. If that is the case, you have yourself to blame for picking an unsuitable man for marriage. If you are even moderately attractive, you probably overlooked better men to be with the man you eventually married because you thought that those other men were “too boring” or something like that. I personally don’t have much sympathy for crazy women like you – you need to realize that your decisions have consequences. I certainly wouldn’t marry a woman who was a piece of crap just because sex with her was good, but maybe that’s just me.